RE: SG2 Vehicle Questions

>Gee Gary I don't think anyone has tried to make vehicles LESS
effective.
>Personally I think the balance for vehicles is fine. I take exception
to
>people trying to make vehicles MORE effective in the game just because
>(well it appears so to me) that they want MORE emphasis on vehicles.
>Have you played a game with a single tank on either side? We've done a
>number of these and if the vehicles are size 4 or 5 then the turn that
>they both are on the board they are at CLOSE range (48 or 60 inches)!!
>Generally one of them is destroyed on that turn! So how do you play a
>Vehicle on Vehicle game on a 6x4 board?? We use vehicles as a combat
>multiplier in a scenario and that works fine.
>
	Owen, I am not trying to place more emphasis on vehicles because
I
want them racing all over the battle field. As Tom has indicated, I am
guilty of keeping aircraft out of our WWII battles since I find them
disruptive to the fighting. However, I will agree with his crit and
would
like to incorporate aircraft in the furure. I realize that it is wrong
to
keep them out all the time. As I mentioned earlier, I am advocating tank
battalions racing about the board. I should think that future infantry
would
have equipment, that would make the lives of tank/APC etc crews very
difficult. I played some Modern Micro armour battles and found that
"spotted" usually means dead. 
	As to your question to if I have fought a battle with
vehicles...the
answer is no. In fact, I have not even played SGII at all yet. I have
bought
that rules and looked them over. I will join Tom during some period that
we
both get free and play it out. You mention that vehicles on a board
would be
at close range all the time, then how do Infantry in the future fight?
Do
they all agree to leave the vehicles behind? Do they ever get into
effective
infantry weapon range, if vehicles are always destroying the their
APC's?
Players make the senario's up and it is their carelessness that will
unbalance the game. 

>It may pay to note that most of the discussion seems to be centring
>around TANK main guns and use argumennts based on 1990s technology (ie
>autoloaders versus human gunner etc). I tried to point out that there
>are a LOT of other weapons systems in the game set. 
>
Ok, your point? I agree, there are alot of other weapon systems. Lots of
anti-armour even. What is it you are saying? That we should avoid using
tanks in the game and rely on other weapon systems? Ok, its your
universe to
run as you wish. I was just hoping I may get some insight into the kind
of
universe I wish to play in (and no there are not tanks zooming
everywhere
blowing things up). Although I love playing fictional and fantasy games,
I
just cannot get away from trying to make them as realistic as possible.
I am
sure Tom Barclay could bore you quickly to death with tales about this
habit
of mine. 

>The other point is that Trevor Dow started this thread with a query
>based on his 'Aliens' style APC. This has the twin turreted PPGs and
>twin turreted SAWs. This is a VERY heavily armed APC and is driven by a
>Synthetic Person!! All of the standard vehicles in SGII rules are far
>simpler in design than this and are a better guide to typical vehicles
>in SG.

Sorry Owen, Again I fail to see what you are using this point for. I
have
seen this vehicle (Tom ran out a bought a few) and I saw the movie.
However,
this vehicle's abilites are not the main point of this line of
discussion
(Actually, I had thought Trevor was talking about the vehicle on the
back of
the SGII cover, since it has two independant turrets). 
				Gary